Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
CESTAT held that imported refined oils and candelilla wax qualified for exemption under Notification No. 50/2017-Customs because approved laboratory reports showed the goods were of edible grade and there was no dispute on tariff classification. The notification required only that the goods fall under the specified headings and be refined edible grade; it did not impose any end-use requirement. The Tribunal also held that a CBEC circular could not add a condition not found in the notification, so the importer's declared use in cosmetics or pharmaceuticals could not defeat the exemption. The appellate order granting benefit under Serial Nos. 64 and 71 was upheld.
CESTAT held that imported refined oils and candelilla wax qualified for exemption under Notification No. 50/2017-Customs because approved laboratory reports showed the goods were of edible grade and there was no dispute on tariff classification. The notification required only that the goods fall under the specified headings and be refined edible grade; it did not impose any end-use requirement. The Tribunal also held that a CBEC circular could not add a condition not found in the notification, so the importer's declared use in cosmetics or pharmaceuticals could not defeat the exemption. The appellate order granting benefit under Serial Nos. 64 and 71 was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
